Re: Tesla partners with AMD/GloFo for self driving car AI processor

Tesla have 'noticed' AMD compute capabilities but you will need an extra 1 hour of charge just to power it....Vega-Chronicles on wattage. Nvidia Pascal is amazing on power efficiency. I don't know what AMD is planning with Navi just maybe it will be at par with Pascal!

Re: Tesla partners with AMD/GloFo for self driving car AI processor

Tesla have 'noticed' AMD compute capabilities but you will need an extra 1 hour of charge just to power it....

That you think this demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the power curves of AMD's current processor lines.

When pushed hard to achieve peak performance yes, AMD's current CPUs and GPUs start burning a lot of power. But when you back off the clock speeds just a little, the power requirements drop exponentially. Remember that they have 32 core EPYC chips out there that can operate with TDPs as low as 140W, and ASUS have produced a laptop with an RX580 tuned to just 65W TDP. AFAIK that slow-but-wide approach is perfect for autonomous driving, which requires huge throughput of many relatively simple individual tasks.

Received thanks from:

Re: Tesla partners with AMD/GloFo for self driving car AI processor

Originally Posted by lumireleon

Tesla have 'noticed' AMD compute capabilities but you will need an extra 1 hour of charge just to power it....Vega-Chronicles on wattage. Nvidia Pascal is amazing on power efficiency. I don't know what AMD is planning with Navi just maybe it will be at par with Pascal!

AMD overvolted Vega and also pushed its clocks pretty high.
Essentially, you say Pascal is amazing on efficiency... that's because its made on a manuf. process optimized for high clock speeds, and in reality is just an overclocked Maxwell.
AMD made Vega on a manuf. process more suited for lower clocks.

Also, when undervolted and ovrerclocked on the core and HBM, Vega 56 beats 1080 in performance and draws less power than 1080.
Vega also reaches Pascal performance with much lower clock speeds btw... so what exactly does that tell you?

I am sick of people projecting this outdated garbage of 'Nvidia has the efficiency crown' when they don't understand the underlying manufacturing processes used behind both them and AMD and clock rates... let alone software optimizations (that can easily extract massive performance from the hardware... right now, Vega hasn't been optimized by developers at all).

Re: Tesla partners with AMD/GloFo for self driving car AI processor

Originally Posted by lumireleon

... (maybe AMD mines illegally the same way Google does with Chrome)

Erm ... what? Google doesn't mine with Chrome. Even if it did it wouldn't be illegal.

You're maybe getting confused about a small number of websites that have recently added javascript mining software as an alternative to running adverts, and one third party Chrome add-in that was surreptitiously mining in the background. None of that is illegal (although some would question the ethics of running complex computations on someone else's computer without warning)...

Received thanks from:

Re: Tesla partners with AMD/GloFo for self driving car AI processor

Originally Posted by deksman2

AMD overvolted Vega and also pushed its clocks pretty high.
Essentially, you say Pascal is amazing on efficiency... that's because its made on a manuf. process optimized for high clock speeds, and in reality is just an overclocked Maxwell.
AMD made Vega on a manuf. process more suited for lower clocks.

Also, when undervolted and ovrerclocked on the core and HBM, Vega 56 beats 1080 in performance and draws less power than 1080.
Vega also reaches Pascal performance with much lower clock speeds btw... so what exactly does that tell you?

I am sick of people projecting this outdated garbage of 'Nvidia has the efficiency crown' when they don't understand the underlying manufacturing processes used behind both them and AMD and clock rates... let alone software optimizations (that can easily extract massive performance from the hardware... right now, Vega hasn't been optimized by developers at all).

I cannot help but read this quote and think of the Jeremy Clarkson Top Gear test of the Toyota prius.
This is typical fanboy AMD stuff. Your justifying your purchase. There are tiny reasons why AMD is good, but Geforce has always been better than AMD, period. Your AMD gpu might be more cost purchase/power efficient or whatever. But it is like me driving a 1.2litre comparing my mates 1.8i. Only reason to buy a Vega is ignorance or budget.

Originally Posted by deksman2

Also, when undervolted and ovrerclocked on the core and HBM, Vega 56 beats 1080 in performance and draws less power than 1080.
Vega also reaches Pascal performance with much lower clock speeds btw... so what exactly does that tell you?

Vega undervoltage may be in some ways better than the Nvidia gpu and there may be some tasks the AMD gpu can do better than the Nvidias such as mining. But that is like comparing the heater's in each others cars, not how they are to drive. Vega might be better at mining with undervoltage but is that going to get you 2100mhz?